Christopher Hansard - Tibetan Bon Medicine

[mahakala]

You posted this



Surely you are not that unobjective that you cannot formulate the opinion he quite possibly "made it up as he went along"? You appear to be implying that this person absolutely must have knowlege beyond the ken of mortal man for him to do the things he does.

Made it up as he went along is quite different than gathered it together as he went along. The former suggests imagination; the latter suggests research.

Or are you too unfamiliar with the body of Hansard's work to weigh in on that?

[bobdezon]

Surely you are aware that his alleged method/skill is unrecognised by the actual Bonpos themselves? Far from it being traditional Bon medicine as he claims the actual Bon practitioners have never heard of it. This should be your first clue as to how exact and precisely truthful he is.

This man has invented a history for himself to convince gullible people he is some sort of healer based on the old overused "knowlege of the ancients" (ou remember those? they had no antibiotics etc), consequently desperately Ill people convinced of his self publicised ability flock to see him and be treated. Much mumbo jumbo later and several payments to his own private bank will attest to his reasons for doing so. The man is a charletan and I daresay conman that specialises in fleecing the terminally ill for personal gain.

[mahakala]

Surely you are aware that his alleged method/skill is unrecognised by the actual Bonpos themselves? Far from it being traditional Bon medicine as he claims the actual Bon practitioners have never heard of it. This should be your first clue as to how exact and precisely truthful he is.

This man has invented a history for himself to convince gullible people he is some sort of healer based on the old overused "knowlege of the ancients" (ou remember those? they had no antibiotics etc), consequently desperately Ill people convinced of his self publicised ability flock to see him and be treated. Much mumbo jumbo later and several payments to his own private bank will attest to his reasons for doing so. The man is a charletan and I daresay conman that specialises in fleecing the terminally ill for personal gain.

And, in the name of objectivity, you have gathered your information about Hansard's activities from which source?

[bobdezon]

From several sources as any sceptical person should, so there is no bias. I have read his website, and a statement from a Dr Barry Clarke. To be a practitioner of Bon one must be able to read and write tibetan (it is a requirement for tutelage) Christopher Hansard cannot speak nor read tibetan.

He purposely plagerised a poem by one Oriah Mountaindreamer which he then included as a bon invokation in his book. He was forced by Harper Collins (her publisher) to apologise.

The office of the dalai lama himself does not recognise Christopher Hansards work and casts doubt over him even being a practitioner of bon.

The ancient tibetan master he claimed to have been taught by just happened to be in new zealand and speak perfect english to teach him, yet he knows no tibetan.

There are plenty of online sources discussing this person, and probably many more physical discourses in libraries everywhere.

[mahakala]

From several sources as any sceptical person should, so there is no bias. I have read his website, and a statement from a Dr Barry Clarke. To be a practitioner of Bon one must be able to read and write tibetan (it is a requirement for tutelage) Christopher Hansard cannot speak nor read tibetan.

He purposely plagerised a poem by one Oriah Mountaindreamer which he then included as a bon invokation in his book. He was forced by Harper Collins (her publisher) to apologise.

The office of the dalai lama himself does not recognise Christopher Hansards work and casts doubt over him even being a practitioner of bon.

The ancient tibetan master he claimed to have been taught by just happened to be in new zealand and speak perfect english to teach him, yet he knows no tibetan.

There are plenty of online sources discussing this person, and probably many more physical discourses in libraries everywhere.

I see that your source of information is Rick Ross and Jeff Bowe. Nuff said.

[bobdezon]

Those are but two sources of information, there are others like the JREF forums and Christopher Hansards own website etc. I looked at many sources of information, including less than favourable book reviews. I see that you are instantly dismissing my findings based soley on your inability to accept this man is capable of fraud.

It would appear you have an agenda. Would you be Christopher himself alerted by Google alerts to this forum thread like pema was? Perhaps you are an associate or student. Regardless of your loyalty you cannot seriously dispute the evidence supplied, that is unless you know something I dont.

You may choose to believe this person is innocent, that is your perogative, but as I stated earlier perhaps you could use a lesson in objectivity? It would certainly appear to be the case.

You have added nothing to the debate except doubt on all who critique Christopher Hansard, and his blatantly obvious manipulation of the truth.

[mahakala]

Those are but two sources of information, there are others like the JREF forums and Christopher Hansards own website etc. I looked at many sources of information, including less than favourable book reviews. I see that you are instantly dismissing my findings based soley on your inability to accept this man is capable of fraud.

It would appear you have an agenda. Would you be Christopher himself alerted by Google alerts to this forum thread like pema was? Perhaps you are an associate or student. Regardless of your loyalty you cannot seriously dispute the evidence supplied, that is unless you know something I dont.

You may choose to believe this person is innocent, that is your perogative, but as I stated earlier perhaps you could use a lesson in objectivity? It would certainly appear to be the case.

You have added nothing to the debate except doubt on all who critique Christopher Hansard, and his blatantly obvious manipulation of the truth.

I see. So it is okay to criticise somebody based on the information supplied by critics, each who have their own personal agenda. Don't you ever feel a little manipulated by that? But it's not Ok to criticise the critics?

And you are talking to me about objectivity?

I don't have an opinion but I do have a lot of facts about Christopher Hansard. Some good, some bad. But then you're not really interested in the facts are you?

[Matt]

When one person says they have facts and reveals them in support of their provisional opinion and another claims to have facts but reveals only their opinion then it is clear who is being honest.
You may criticize the critics but do so with checkable facts.
In other words we are interested in facts. Please provide them.

[mahakala]

You posted this



Surely you are not that unobjective that you cannot formulate the opinion he quite possibly "made it up as he went along"? You appear to be implying that this person absolutely must have knowlege beyond the ken of mortal man for him to do the things he does.

Just stop all this imputation of motive and allegiances will you please.

If you actually studied something of what Hansard does you would see that he has tapped into something from somewhere and that is what interests me. For instance, he claims he received an oral tradition. Well, during the Yar Lung dynasty in Tibet knowledge was an oral tradition and Dur Bon was common and called the Bon of the Grave because of its extensive funeral rites and the story that it was a Dur Bon practitioner that drove a sword into the heart of a particular king during that time. Furthermore, there is a ruined Jangter monastery in Tibet. Furthermore, he uses a language with extensive reference to old Bon god forms and the like. Made it all up; I don't think so. Embellished or intepreted, probably. He got it from somewhere, either research or from somebody. And the fact is, his ideas and approach to things closely resembles the shamanic traditions throughout Russia, the Himalayas and places like Korea. So, to say he made it all up, is just ridiculous and cannot possibly be the conclusion of anyone who has actually studied his work.

The man might be greatly flawed, but he is on to something, regardless of where or how he got it. This becomes clear and indisputable if you actually explore, rather than sit at a computer on the internet and think that what you are reading is little more than tabloid journalism.

[bobdezon]

You repeated insistance "he is onto something" is a fallacy. It is an opinion that you adhere to because it suits what you already believe. This is a form of confirmation bias.You may believe that this mystical shamam based magic has a real world application. I can assure you that it does not. Except perhaps as entertainment.

You can quite rightly critique anyone, anywhere at any time. This is called free speech and it falls under rational discourse too. Critics will always have an agenda, that agenda is usually just critique, not hatred. I do not feel manipulated by reading others critiques, It is upto me to agree or disagree with an idea/concept. All knowlege is the exact same thing. Did you feel manipulated in school learning your times tables?

Of course I am interested in facts, this is a public debate forum and as such if you have a counterpoint or a "flurry of facts" you should make your case instead of just pointlessly arguing about nothing.

To me it matters not what Christopher Hansards con is at any given moment, however what I can assure you given the wealth of information pertaining to his "skill" from people who are actually practitioners of bon, it would appear that what he practises is not Bon, to claim otherwise is clearly fallacious.

I disagree that he is "clearly onto something", or indeed "clear and indesputable". The fact you are arguing his case on a public forum is quite frankly making your statements ironic.

I can explore ideas and principles just as well from my computer as I can by attending a bon class in tibet. Information is information regardless of the method of delivery.

[mahakala]

You repeated insistance "he is onto something" is a fallacy. It is an opinion that you adhere to because it suits what you already believe. This is a form of confirmation bias.You may believe that this mystical shamam based magic has a real world application. I can assure you that it does not. Except perhaps as entertainment.

You can quite rightly critique anyone, anywhere at any time. This is called free speech and it falls under rational discourse too. Critics will always have an agenda, that agenda is usually just critique, not hatred. I do not feel manipulated by reading others critiques, It is upto me to agree or disagree with an idea/concept. All knowlege is the exact same thing. Did you feel manipulated in school learning your times tables?

Of course I am interested in facts, this is a public debate forum and as such if you have a counterpoint or a "flurry of facts" you should make your case instead of just pointlessly arguing about nothing.

To me it matters not what Christopher Hansards con is at any given moment, however what I can assure you given the wealth of information pertaining to his "skill" from people who are actually practitioners of bon, it would appear that what he practises is not Bon, to claim otherwise is clearly fallacious.

I disagree that he is "clearly onto something", or indeed "clear and indesputable". The fact you are arguing his case on a public forum is quite frankly making your statements ironic.

I can explore ideas and principles just as well from my computer as I can by attending a bon class in tibet. Information is information regardless of the method of delivery.

Interesting how you claim I have a bias because of a pre-existing belief and then base that opinion on your own herein stated bias and belief. The idea that you know for a fact anything in this area is pure hubris and makes you absolutely without question unable to investigate it with even the remotest objectivity. So, goodbye and goodnight.

[bobdezon]

Thanks for proving my point, ta ta for now

[mahakala]

Thanks for proving my point, ta ta for now

Caught you Manjit.

[bobdezon]

Of course you did, be a good boy and run along home now, momma has some ice cream in the oven for you. Youve been ever so good.

[mahakala]

Of course you did, be a good boy and run along home now, momma has some ice cream in the oven for you. Youve been ever so good.

Usual internet bravery I see. Usual internet put down. Usual disingenuous trollop.